The cutoff for including an observation in the aggregate was changed from "reported value" to "audited value" in 2019, which should increase data quality but also changes which observations are included. Some regions lost data points in this transition. Should we create both a "all-reported" and an "audited-only" view for historical continuity?
Glóin Gardner Can we get a review from someone who wasn't involved in building the original metric definition — it's easy to miss subtle issues when you've been living in the code for months? See /u/vgt_thabo_zhang/p/plot-0013.
Thabo Zhang The regional weights used in the aggregation are fixed at their 2010 values, which means the aggregate composition has drifted as regional sizes change. For the last 15 years, the nominal weights no longer reflect actual proportions. Should we reweight with current figures, or should we keep the 2010 basis for historical continuity?
Confirmed. (edited to fix a unit)